Replacing Thread Deletions with simply highlighting the post.

[MadameDefarge]

So often deleting an offensive comment does nothing to aid the person being attacked, and leaves great holes in the narrative of the thread.

I am suggesting leaving all posts that MNHQ would normally have deleted, but highlighting them in a special colour.

This would signal that MNHQ do not consider the post within the guidelines, with making some threads like confetti.

I do think people should stand by their posts, and deleting them allows people to be quite vile, without any real consequences.

I say this as someone who has been deleted many many times. I think if I knew what I was saying couldn't be pulled at all, it might well serve as break, or at least prompt an apology once I had cooled down and realised I was a twit.

Its not quite naming and shaming, but is showing an MNHQ decision most people will understand on reading those posts.

It might well prompt more self regulation.

As it stands, anything vile gets deleted, and the poster can continue being horrible without anyone really knowing why they were deleted (if they come to a thread after a deletion.

So, what do people think of this as an idea?

@Maryz

What a lovely idea Kate.

I would like to be sunshine yellow, if that is ok? Previously I asked for blue, but Olivia very meanly refused with the rather pathetic excuse that it was reserved for mnhq.

Arf

The stories that Olivia comes out with...I don't know...

How about greying out the offending posts rather than highlighting them, then? So they stand out less instead of more? Or, I don't know how easy it would be to implement but you could have posts that break the Talk Guidelines hidden by default, but with a button to unhide each one individually if people want to see them?

KateMumsnet Disemvowelling in action - see Making Light, or Boing Boing (both implemented by same moderator):
nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006871.html

Some background here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disemvoweling

Obviously there are some differences between comments on a blog, and forum discussions. Plus, moderation solutions have to fit the community culture - I don't know how it'd fit MN, and I do agree that it wouldn't really help to calm down a thread that's starting to turn into a bunfight.

Thought I'd mention it as an option to think about though.

Jezebel used to disemvowel. I'm not sure if they still do as I haven't posted for a while.

I don't like the idea of highlighting either, and I can't place why.

I think the idea of asking whoever was personally attacked whether they want something to stand or be deleted would be massively time consuming for HQ - I always assumed that PAs would be the number 1 reason for deletion - there's just too much follow up with asking & waiting for a reply before carrying through, the process is too lengthly

I do like the idea of a mini deletion message explaining why a post has gone though eg "deleted - personal attack" rather than just "deleted by MNHQ", it can be as elaborate as you want, but even in the barest form you get the gist of what happened.

well, they could have a two choice report option, one for deletions and one for letting it stand.

I agree now that highlighting would just draw attention to contentious posts. But do like the disemvowelling idea

I think a mini deletion message would take as much time, surely?

But the time aspect of asking permission from an OP comes from the part of waiting for the OP's response. Writing a two or three word mini deletion message would take seconds

They would indicate their preference for deletion/non deletion on their reporting post.

But I still think they should stand, and like the disemvowelling best.

Ah I see.

I still don't agree though. Allowing them to stand, disemvowelled or not, comes across as more endorsement than shaming to me.

The maybe it does come down to stopping namechanging, or automatic suspension after three reports of post which break talk guidelines., for a week or something draconian.

But I still come back to the point that removing the posts removes the poster from any further consequences of their actions. Its confusing, infantilising just a bit silly I think. The majority of deletions could perfectly well be allowed to stand as they are.

On really contentious threads it just leads to the post being paraphrased again and again.

I think maybe we need to go back right to the basics and ask, why do we delete posts?

To what end? To serve whom?

Maybe we need to analysis this thoroughly before we can sort out whether deletions are warranted are not.

I really hate this idea.

This is exactly what a troll wants. They don't care that people can see what kind of person they are. Their aim is to hurt as many people as possible with hateful words. Knowing their posts will be left, with as many people possible seeing it, especially if it were highlighted... that's like throwing them a ticker tape parade for their efforts.

er, not all deletions are for trolls, are they? Plenty of normal folk get deleted here, even regulars.

I just don't see the virtue in deleting a post which says 'You are being a bitch' but letting a post which says 'Your post makes you sound like bitch' stand. It just means that people end up finding passive aggressive ways to be nasty or mean, or continue their spat within the 'guidelines'.

You can be a regular and still be a troll.

Posting racist or disablist vitriol makes you a troll in my book.

The idea that posts won't be deleted means the trolls will come flocking, as well.

No, I don't like this idea, sorry. It defeats the point of deleting posts if you, er, don't delete them, and highlighting them is worse. I don't understand the point of disemvowelling to be honest and would end up wasting far too much time deciphering pointless posts just because they were there.

Highlight vitriol? Give them MORE attention?

I'd much prefer a deletion message like MNHQ give deleted threads, but shorter:

Post deleted for being a troll
Post deleted for being racist/disablist
Post deleted for personal attack
Post deleted for being an asshat

But, many people post a comment about a post just before it's deleted, so you can often tell why it's been deleted.

I guess the split is then between those who thing deletion is fine and dandy and those who think its infantilising, pointless disruptive.

I have to say I don't give a toss either way on posts that are vile; they don't hurt my feelings or upset me personally (unless directed towards me) so the ooh we must delete these to protect other MNetters from harm is really obnoxious.Stuff is published everyday that could be contrued as upsetting. Pandering to the lowest common denominator or possible offense and hurt is just silly, in my book.

Especially the direct personal attacks. the guidelines have made getting round them an artform. Most of the time an honest, I think you sound deranged is a lot more decent and less nasty than a convoluted construct.

You're not hurt by them, but some mners are, deeply.

A thread fairly recently was deleted where posters were telling the op that they hoped she miscarried.

I've seen a poster wish another poster dead, in a post which was then deleted.

Do you think those posts should have stood?

er letter, I did say that I was hurt by personal attacks and nastiness directed at me...

Yes, I do. Its been said already. Lots of people have read it. To remove it creates uncertainty and gives the person a hiding place.

The more I think about it the more I think name changing has to go, or at least be severely limited.

I think I would be slightly odd to be personally hurt by an attack on another poster. That's not empathy, that's emotional colonisation.

I would much rather an unpleasant post was left, so the poster could see what people thought of that post. The best moderation is peer moderation (as long as it does not tip over into mob bullying and pressure to conform)